OBJECTIVE: The main aim of the current analysis was to explore the hypothetical advantages using rectal spacer during 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to a no-rectal spacer hydrogel cohort of patients. METHODS: The SBRT-protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions. Herein, we present a dosimetric analysis between spacer and no-spacer patients. Furthermore, treatment tolerability and feasibility were preliminarily assessed according to clinicians-reported outcomes at the end of treatment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in both arms. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score, ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires. RESULTS: 120 plans (pre- and daily adaptive SBRT planning) were analyzed in 20 patients (10 patients in spacer group and 10 patients in no-spacer group) treated using 1.5T MR-guided adaptive SBRT. Statistically significant dosimetric advantages were observed in favor of the spacer insertion, improving the planning target volume coverage in terms of V33.2Gy >95% and planning target volume 37.5 Gy <2% mainly during daily-adapted SBRT. Also, rectum V32, V28 and V18Gy and bladder V35Gy <1 cc were significantly reduced in the spacer cohort. Concerning the PROMS, all questionnaires showed no difference between the pre- and post-SBRT evaluation in both arms, excepting the physical functioning item of EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire that was declined in the no-spacer group. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results strongly suggest the adoption of perirectal spacer due to dosimetric advantages not only for rectal sparing but also for target coverage. Longer follow-up is required to validate the clinical impact in terms of clinicians-reported toxicity and PROMs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This the first experience reporting preliminary data concerning the potential dosimetric impact of rectal hydrogel spacer on MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of the current analysis was to explore the hypothetical advantages using rectal spacer during 1.5T MR-guided and daily adapted prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to a no-rectal spacer hydrogel cohort of patients. METHODS: The SBRT-protocol consisted of a 35 Gy schedule delivered in 5 fractions. Herein, we present a dosimetric analysis between spacer and no-spacer patients. Furthermore, treatment tolerability and feasibility were preliminarily assessed according to clinicians-reported outcomes at the end of treatment and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in both arms. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after treatment using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v. 5.0, International Prostatic Symptoms Score, ICIQ-SF, IIEF-5, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires. RESULTS: 120 plans (pre- and daily adaptive SBRT planning) were analyzed in 20 patients (10 patients in spacer group and 10 patients in no-spacer group) treated using 1.5T MR-guided adaptive SBRT. Statistically significant dosimetric advantages were observed in favor of the spacer insertion, improving the planning target volume coverage in terms of V33.2Gy >95% and planning target volume 37.5 Gy <2% mainly during daily-adapted SBRT. Also, rectum V32, V28 and V18Gy and bladder V35Gy <1 cc were significantly reduced in the spacer cohort. Concerning the PROMS, all questionnaires showed no difference between the pre- and post-SBRT evaluation in both arms, excepting the physical functioning item of EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire that was declined in the no-spacer group. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results strongly suggest the adoption of perirectal spacer due to dosimetric advantages not only for rectal sparing but also for target coverage. Longer follow-up is required to validate the clinical impact in terms of clinicians-reported toxicity and PROMs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This the first experience reporting preliminary data concerning the potential dosimetric impact of rectal hydrogel spacer on MR-guided SBRT for prostate cancer.
Authors: David E Neal; Chris Metcalfe; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Michael Davis; Grace J Young; Susan J Dutton; Eleanor I Walsh; Richard M Martin; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Malcolm Mason; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Peter Holding; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Jon Oxley; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; John Staffurth; Doug G Altman; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Neil Mariados; John Sylvester; Dhiren Shah; Lawrence Karsh; Richard Hudes; David Beyer; Steven Kurtzman; Jeffrey Bogart; R Alex Hsi; Michael Kos; Rodney Ellis; Mark Logsdon; Shawn Zimberg; Kevin Forsythe; Hong Zhang; Edward Soffen; Patrick Francke; Constantine Mantz; Peter Rossi; Theodore DeWeese; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Anupama Chundury; Hiram Gay; Walter Bosch; Jeff Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Francesco Cuccia; Rosario Mazzola; Stefano Arcangeli; Gianluca Mortellaro; Vanessa Figlia; Giovanni Caminiti; Gioacchino Di Paola; Antonio Spera; Giuseppina Iacoviello; Filippo Alongi; Antonio Lo Casto; Stefano Maria Magrini; Giuseppe Ferrera Journal: Tumori Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 2.098
Authors: S Corradini; F Alongi; N Andratschke; C Belka; L Boldrini; F Cellini; J Debus; M Guckenberger; J Hörner-Rieber; F J Lagerwaard; R Mazzola; M A Palacios; M E P Philippens; C P J Raaijmakers; C H J Terhaard; V Valentini; M Niyazi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Dennis Winkel; Gijsbert H Bol; Petra S Kroon; Bram van Asselen; Sara S Hackett; Anita M Werensteijn-Honingh; Martijn P W Intven; Wietse S C Eppinga; Rob H N Tijssen; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Hans C J de Boer; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Jochem Hes; Mirjam Willemsen-Bosman; Eline N de Groot-van Breugel; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Bas W Raaymakers Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-04-02
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Helen Mossop; Vincent Khoo; Alison Birtle; David Bloomfield; John Graham; Peter Kirkbride; John Logue; Zafar Malik; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe M O'Sullivan; Miguel Panades; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Christopher Scrase; John Staffurth; Andrew Stockdale; Jean Tremlett; Margaret Bidmead; Helen Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris South; Annie Gao; Clare Cruickshank; Shama Hassan; Julia Pugh; Clare Griffin; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Charisma Hehakaya; Ankur M Sharma; Jochem R N van der Voort Van Zijp; Diederick E Grobbee; Helena M Verkooijen; Enrique W Izaguirre; Ellen H M Moors Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: Randall J Brenneman; S Murty Goddu; Neal Andruska; Amit Roy; Walter R Bosch; Benjamin Fischer-Valuck; Jason A Efstathiou; Hiram A Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Brian C Baumann Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-10-22
Authors: Vickie C Kong; Jennifer Dang; Winnie Li; Inmaculada Navarro; Jerusha Padayachee; Victor Malkov; Jeff Winter; Srinivas Raman; Alejandro Berlin; Charles Catton; Padraig Warde; Peter Chung Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-02
Authors: Palak Kundu; Eric Y Lin; Stephanie M Yoon; Neil R Parikh; Dan Ruan; Amar U Kishan; Alan Lee; Michael L Steinberg; Albert J Chang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Honglai Zhang; Lin Wang; Adam C Riegel; Jeffrey Antone; Louis Potters; Lucille Lee; Yijian Cao Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Jonathan W Lischalk; Seth Blacksburg; Christopher Mendez; Michael Repka; Astrid Sanchez; Todd Carpenter; Matthew Witten; Jules E Garbus; Andrew Evans; Sean P Collins; Aaron Katz; Jonathan Haas Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 3.481